Springer v. Cahoy, 841 N.W.2d 15

Springers own an east 40-acre parcel that became landlocked after Lester Harrington split an 80-acre tract in 1967; Cahoy owns the adjoining west 40-acre parcel with road access.
From 1967–2007 the two parcels were operated together, but no written easement was ever recorded.
After Cahoy locked gates and posted signs (2008–2009), Springers began crossing Cahoy’s land and then filed a quiet-title action in 2009 claiming an implied easement.
The circuit court initially found an easement implied from prior use; this court reversed in 2012 for lack of clear-and-convincing evidence and remanded.
On remand Springers sought an implied easement by necessity; the circuit court denied relief, finding (a) requirements for necessity not met, (b) an adequate remedy at law existed, and (c) the Marketable Record Title Act (SDMTA) barred the claim.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed solely on the ground that SDMTA extinguished Springers’ common-law easement-by-necessity claim because the severance creating the necessity occurred more than 22 years before their claim and no preserving notice was recorded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Springers are entitled to an implied easement by necessity	The 1967 severance created a continuing necessity for access that entitles the landlocked parcel to a right-of-way	SDMTA bars any claim dependent on acts 22+ years earlier; Cahoy has marketable record title and possession	SDMTA bars the implied-easement-by-necessity claim because the severance creating the necessity occurred more than 22 years before the claim and no timely notice was recorded

Springer v. Cahoy, 814 N.W.2d 131 (S.D. 2012) (reversal of circuit court’s implied-from-prior-use easement finding)
Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC, 657 N.W.2d 300 (S.D. 2003) (describes two common-law implied easements: necessity and prior use)
Magnuson v. Cossette, 707 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (necessity must exist at severance)
Cobb v. Daugherty, 693 S.E.2d 800 (W. Va. 2010) (same rule on timing of necessity)
Tvedt v. Bork, 414 N.W.2d 11 (S.D. 1987) (Marketable Title Act extinguishes ancient title claims)
Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 1957) (discussing MTA as curative/recording/statute-of-limitations function)
H & F Land, Inc. v. Panama City-Bay Cnty. Airport & Indus. Dist., 736 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1999) (MTA extinguished a common-law way of necessity where no timely notice recorded)
Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass’n v. Anderson, 827 N.W.2d 859 (S.D. 2013) (standards of review cited)